| People v Cohen |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08451 [123 AD3d 733] |
| December 3, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kevin I. Cohen, Appellant. |
Kevin I. Cohen, Napanoch, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley,Judith R. Sternberg, and Andrea M. DiGregorio of counsel; Richard Wolf on the brief),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Kase, J.), rendered December 7, 2010, convicting him of grand larceny in the seconddegree, grand larceny in the third degree (11 counts), criminal possession of forgerydevices (3 counts), attempted grand larceny in the third degree (1 count), scheme todefraud in the first degree (1 count), forgery in the third degree (10 counts), criminalpossession of a forged instrument in the third degree (8 counts), and criminalimpersonation in the second degree (2 counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing pursuant to astipulation in lieu of motions, of the suppression of the defendant's statement to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his statement to law enforcement officials should havebeen suppressed because it was taken in violation of his right to counsel. However, whenthe defendant gave his statement, he was in custody in connection with the instant matter,for which he was not then represented by counsel, and the instant matter was unrelated tocharges pending in connection with another matter, with respect to which he wasrepresented. Therefore, the defendant could validly waive his right to counsel withrespect to the instant matter (seePeople v Lopez, 16 NY3d 375, 384 [2011]; People v Burdo, 91 NY2d146 [1997]; People v Bing, 76 NY2d 331 [1990]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The defendant contends that his convictionsof grand larceny in the second degree and grand larceny in the third degree were againstthe weight of the evidence. Contrary to this contention, upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdicts of guilt as to those crimes were not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
[*2] The defendant's remainingcontentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.Balkin, J.P., Hall, Austin and Barros, JJ., concur.